If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

That wasn't a non sequitur... I wasn't drawing conclusions, I was making a point. If you argued the point, I would call you stupid and/or make an argument for my point.

No, you were attempting to force me into a conclusion that my premise didn't argue, THAT is a non sequitur. That's why I am unable to understand why one would try to paint another individual into a corner that that didn't exist in the first place. Do I really need to explain this to you again?

That's the claim you made, that's the claim I'm arguing. If you're talking about stats you can't exclude categories, that's just an obvious.

I absolutely can exclude categories based on the logical reasons that they are excluded. You are free to disagree, but in a situation where you are adding counting stats wrt a player that has had 6 extra years of play you make yourself look foolish.

It's the exact same thing as saying Tony Romo has had better career stats than Brett Favre and Jeff Garcia,

No, it's really not. As I've stated repeatedly, all I said was that if you look at non-counting stats Romo is better. Again (for the third time) this may have something to do with a decline in production based on age vs. a young QB in his prime. I'm having a difficult time figuring out how you can argue against that statement when it is backed up by irrefutable numbers.

Career stats and career efficiency isn't the same thing.

you're right, they aren't. The same difference between how good a player's career is, and how good a player's career stats are right now

Then why in the world would you make the comparison?

Because that was the question posed at the start of the thread?

What you're basically doing is a non sequitor! By only suggesting percentages and averages, you're assuming Tony Romo's career finishes around that!

Except I'm not? I'm only basing my own conclusions on things that have actually happened, and additionally I've stated several times that Romo's numbers may decline as his career progresses, or they may go through the roof. Is it that hard to grasp that?

Who knows if Tony Romo suffers a sports hernia next year a la Donovan did after his best year of the season, and after that Romo's career becomes a steady slide down to mediocricy because of injuries? Anything can happen.

That's true, and that's the exact reason that I stated that a true comparison can only be made once BOTH careers are done. Did you miss that? Also, are you honestly asking people to ascertain a player's worth based on what may or may not happen to them in the future injury-wise?

If you're going to compare career stats you have to include and address everything, or else you're just practicing ignorancy.

If you're going to compare career stats between two players at vastly different positions in their career, you can only fairly look at percentages and averages. To look at career totals that aren't averaged out is a practice in ignorancy, and most likely homerism.

No, you were attempting to force me into a conclusion that my premise didn't argue, THAT is a non sequitur. That's why I am unable to understand why one would try to paint another individual into a corner that that didn't exist in the first place. Do I really need to explain this to you again?

You really think you can tell me what I was and wasn't attempting to do?

Originally Posted by Zep

I absolutely can exclude categories based on the logical reasons that they are excluded. You are free to disagree, but in a situation where you are adding counting stats wrt a player that has had 6 extra years of play you make yourself look foolish.

The "logical reasons" you suggested weren't logical at all. You're basically excluding them because they favored Donovan. I mean, you really think the fact that Tony Romo hasn't played as long is Donovan's fault in any ways? That's like saying a Sheldon Brown should have made the pro bowl over DRC because Sheldon had to play hurt in the second half of the season.

We're talking about career stats dude, that's the exact definition of cumulative collecting! Are the cumulative yards, touchdowns, and victories not stats? Did they not occur over the respective players' careers? So why should they be excluded?

I mean, going by your same reasoning, you could say Aaron Rodgers has better career stats than John Elway! Higher YPG, better completion percentage, better rating, better TD/INT ratio, etc. Who can blame Aaron Rodgers for the fact that he's only played two years?

Originally Posted by Zep

No, it's really not. As I've stated repeatedly, all I said was that if you look at non-counting stats Romo is better. Again (for the third time) this may have something to do with a decline in production based on age vs. a young QB in his prime. I'm having a difficult time figuring out how you can argue against that statement when it is backed up by irrefutable numbers.

He does have better non-counting stats. There's argument around that as to why Romo has better non-counting stats, but as far as the binary question goes he does. That being said, non-counting stats is not the same thing as career stats.

Originally Posted by Zep

you're right, they aren't. The same difference between how good a player's career is, and how good a player's career stats are right now

Okay...

Originally Posted by Zep

Because that was the question posed at the start of the thread?

The question posed at the start of the thread was "Donovan Mcnabb, Eli Manning, or Tony Romo. All 3 are pro bowl quality players, but how would you rank em 1 to 3?" You were the one who brought up career stats out of the blue.

Originally Posted by Zep

Except I'm not? I'm only basing my own conclusions on things that have actually happened, and additionally I've stated several times that Romo's numbers may decline as his career progresses, or they may go through the roof. Is it that hard to grasp that?

That really contradicts your use of the averages then... Longevity is an extremely important and valuable attribute in the NFL, and your completely ignoring it because it goes against your argument.

Originally Posted by Zep

That's true, and that's the exact reason that I stated that a true comparison can only be made once BOTH careers are done.

Again...then why would you bring up career stats? McNabb has better career stats now, that's simply an immobile fact.

Originally Posted by Zep

Did you miss that? Also, are you honestly asking people to ascertain a player's worth based on what may or may not happen to them in the future injury-wise?

I'm saying you should base it off of every stat that's already occurred, including the counting ones.

Originally Posted by Zep

If you're going to compare career stats between two players at vastly different positions in their career, you can only fairly look at percentages and averages. To look at career totals that aren't averaged out is a practice in ignorancy, and most likely homerism.

I'm not the one ignoring stats. I see the percentages and averages, and I know they're very good so far. However, he's only done it for four years. The fact that Donovan's done what he has for as long as he has should definitely be a higher value of priority than premature averages.

You're only excluding the counting stats because you think it's only fair to level the playing field, when in fact there's no rule that you have to do that in statistics. Statistics are facts, and if you're going to depict them you have to include every stat.

You really think you can tell me what I was and wasn't attempting to do?

The "logical reasons" you suggested weren't logical at all. You're basically excluding them because they favored Donovan. I mean, you really think the fact that Tony Romo hasn't played as long is Donovan's fault in any ways? That's like saying a Sheldon Brown should have made the pro bowl over DRC because Sheldon had to play hurt in the second half of the season.

We're talking about career stats dude, that's the exact definition of cumulative collecting! Are the cumulative yards, touchdowns, and victories not stats? Did they not occur over the respective players' careers? So why should they be excluded?

I mean, going by your same reasoning, you could say Aaron Rodgers has better career stats than John Elway! Higher YPG, better completion percentage, better rating, better TD/INT ratio, etc. Who can blame Aaron Rodgers for the fact that he's only played two years?

He does have better non-counting stats. There's argument around that as to why Romo has better non-counting stats, but as far as the binary question goes he does. That being said, non-counting stats is not the same thing as career stats.

Okay...

The question posed at the start of the thread was "Donovan Mcnabb, Eli Manning, or Tony Romo. All 3 are pro bowl quality players, but how would you rank em 1 to 3?" You were the one who brought up career stats out of the blue.

That really contradicts your use of the averages then... Longevity is an extremely important and valuable attribute in the NFL, and your completely ignoring it because it goes against your argument.

Again...then why would you bring up career stats? McNabb has better career stats now, that's simply an immobile fact.

I'm saying you should base it off of every stat that's already occurred, including the counting ones.

I'm not the one ignoring stats. I see the percentages and averages, and I know they're very good so far. However, he's only done it for four years. The fact that Donovan's done what he has for as long as he has should definitely be a higher value of priority than premature averages.

You're only excluding the counting stats because you think it's only fair to level the playing field, when in fact there's no rule that you have to do that in statistics. Statistics are facts, and if you're going to depict them you have to include every stat.

Eli is ahead of Romo because he won the Super Bowl, and if Romo were to retire today he still would have been remembered for chocking in the playoffs (although after this year's playoff's, Romo might be able to move himself up a spot).

You really think you can tell me what I was and wasn't attempting to do?

OK I'll bite, please by all means enlighten us as to what your reasoning was behind asking me a question that is as ridiculous as "If McNabb and Romo ended their careers right now, you think Romo would have a better shot at getting into the HOF"?

The "logical reasons" you suggested weren't logical at all. You're basically excluding them because they favored Donovan.

No, I excluded them because they aren't leveled and to include them would make assumptions as to how an individual player's career may, or may not end. If you have some problem with me calling that comparison career stats that's your prerogative, but at that point it's a sematic debate, not a debate on the numbers.

I mean, you really think the fact that Tony Romo hasn't played as long is Donovan's fault in any ways?

LOL, no I don't think it's "Donovan's fault" but I also don't think it's "Romo's fault" that he happened to be born a few years after McNabb.

That's like saying a Sheldon Brown should have made the pro bowl over DRC because Sheldon had to play hurt in the second half of the season.

Wow, I didn't think you'd be able to come up with a statement farther from what I actually said than the one where you ask me if Romo deserves to be in the HOF over McNabb, but you did it, congrats!

We're talking about career stats dude, that's the exact definition of cumulative collecting!

Yes we are! And when both players' careers are over, it will make sense to include those stats! LOL, it's really not that hard to grasp "dude". I'll repeat this just one more time and hope that something finally sticks: I said that IF you looked at career stats AND removed counting stats from the equation (for the reasons that I've laboriously attempted to explain to you), THEN Romo would have better career stats at this point. I did NOT say that Romo has a better career than McNabb...I really hope you will be able to seperate those concepts, but at this point I'm not holding my breath.

Are the cumulative yards, touchdowns, and victories not stats? Did they not occur over the respective players' careers?

They certainly did, and (as I've stated I think FOUR times now) they will be completely relevant once their careers are done. Until then they are superfluous. I'll again give you the benefit of the doubt that you just have a semantic difference of opinion with regards to the term "career stats" (and also that you are somehow unable to grasp the concept of comparing two players who are at vastly different points in their career). I understand that it's not an easy thing to do, and that's the only reason that I removed counting stats from my original point, not because I think anything is "Donovan's fault".

So why should they be excluded?

Asked and answered. You are more than welcome to include them, I choose not to include them until both careers are done. I'm amazed that you take such issue with this.

I mean, going by your same reasoning, you could say Aaron Rodgers has better career stats than John Elway! Higher YPG, better completion percentage, better rating, better TD/INT ratio, etc. Who can blame Aaron Rodgers for the fact that he's only played two years?

Good lord, it's like talking to a brick wall, I honestly think you need to go back and read what I said, only this time, try and comprehend all the words, not just the ones that you want to see.

He does have better non-counting stats. There's argument around that as to why Romo has better non-counting stats, but as far as the binary question goes he does.

Hey look, a reasonable statement.

That being said, non-counting stats is not the same thing as a career.

ftfy

Okay...

Wow, I think maybe you just realized what I've been saying the whole time, let's hope it sticks!

The question posed at the start of the thread was "Donovan Mcnabb, Eli Manning, or Tony Romo. All 3 are pro bowl quality players, but how would you rank em 1 to 3?" You were the one who brought up career stats out of the blue.

Because I wanted to clarify that if I had to place them right now career-wise, I wouldn't put Manning over McNabb, it's really that simple.

That really contradicts your use of the averages then... Longevity is an extremely important and valuable attribute in the NFL,

How does not including counting stats contradict the use of averaged stats? Did you even read ring's post that responded to you asking this the first time? The whole reason for averaged stats is to remove counting stats from the equation...you're not even making sense at this point. Longevity is certainly a part of a player's career, but you looked at a post where I explicitly stated that I was making a list of career stats that don't include counting stats....and then said "but counting stats!"...do you see why I might roll my eyes at that?

and your completely ignoring it because it goes against your argument.

No, I'm not including them for the reasons that I stated. Yeesh.

Again...then why would you bring up career stats? McNabb has a better career now, that's simply an immobile fact.

ftfy

I'm saying you should base it off of every stat that's already occurred, including the counting ones.

Oh I think we all get what you think, you've repeated it for about 5 posts now.

I'm not the one ignoring stats. I see the percentages and averages, and I know they're very good so far. However, he's only done it for four years.

Which is exactly why I stated that some could argue using averaged stats puts McNabb at an "unfair" disadvantage because of his decline due to age. Did you even read my posts?

The fact that Donovan's done what he has for as long as he has should definitely be a higher value of priority than premature averages.

That's a lovely opinion to have. If someone argues against it let me know.

You're only excluding the counting stats because you think it's only fair to level the playing field, when in fact there's no rule that you have to do that in statistics. Statistics are facts, and if you're going to depict them you have to include every stat.

What on Earth are you talking about? "Rules" of statistics? Are you just pulling stuff out of thin air now? Sweet Jesus I'm done trying to explain this to you, it's like talking to a rock. I gave reasons for why I excluded certain stats, you are free to dislike those reasons all you want. Have a good day.

OK I'll bite, please by all means enlighten us as to what your reasoning was behind asking me a question that is as ridiculous as "If McNabb and Romo ended their careers right now, you think Romo would have a better shot at getting into the HOF"?

If you said yes, I would have the self-satisfaction of knowing you're a complete moron.

Originally Posted by Zep

No, I excluded them because they aren't leveled and to include them would make assumptions as to how an individual player's career may, or may not end.

You aren't supposed to have to make assumptions. You're just supposed to cut all the other 'Ifs' out and judge based on their career milestones so far. Like I said, you don't have to level the playing field to make it a fair comparison. Sometimes there just aren't any fair comparison. Like if I were to compare Caddilac Williams' career stats to Shaun Alexander in 2005 I wouldn't just look at the averages in order to make it a "fairer" comparison, I would look at everything and realize Shaun Alexander has much better career stats so far.

Originally Posted by Zep

If you have some problem with me calling that comparison career stats that's your prerogative, but at that point it's a sematic debate, not a debate on the numbers.

You're right, it's completely semantic!

Originally Posted by Zep

LOL, no I don't think it's "Donovan's fault" but I also don't think it's "Romo's fault" that he happened to be born a few years after McNabb.

Exactly, which is why regardless it shouldn't favor either parties...

Originally Posted by Zep

Wow, I didn't think you'd be able to come up with a statement farther from what I actually said than the one where you ask me if Romo deserves to be in the HOF over McNabb, but you did it, congrats!

Wrong. Because what you suggested was leveling the playing field because Tony Romo's at a different point of his career. The same between DRC and Sheldon aside from a switched variable: from longevity to injury.

Originally Posted by Zep

Yes we are! And when both players' careers are over, it will make sense to include those stats! LOL, it's really not that hard to grasp "dude". I'll repeat this just one more time and hope that something finally sticks: I said that IF you looked at career stats AND removed counting stats from the equation (for the reasons that I've laboriously attempted to explain to you), THEN Romo would have better career stats at this point. I did NOT say that Romo has a better career than McNabb...I really hope you will be able to seperate those concepts, but at this point I'm not holding my breath.

So you're statements a "Yes, if", and not a "Yes". Simple (literal, not rhetorical). Answer this with yes or no.

Does Tony Romo have better career stats than Donovan McNabb up to this very minute?

Please no further explanations around it.

Originally Posted by Zep

They certainly did, and (as I've stated I think FOUR times now) they will be completely relevant once their careers are done. Until then they are superfluous. I'll again give you the benefit of the doubt that you just have a semantic difference of opinion with regards to the term "career stats" (and also that you are somehow unable to grasp the concept of comparing two players who are at vastly different points in their career). I understand that it's not an easy thing to do, and that's the only reason that I removed counting stats from my original point, not because I think anything is "Donovan's fault".

I don't understand what makes you think they aren't relevant now. It's obviously a disagreement of semantics.

Originally Posted by Zep

Good lord, it's like talking to a brick wall, I honestly think you need to go back and read what I said, only this time, try and comprehend all the words, not just the ones that you want to see.

Tell me if I'm wrong. Has Aaron Rodgers not been born at a different time than Elway? Has Aaron Rodgers' career not ended yet? Would it not be leveling the playing field if I just include averages?

That's the reasoning I'm getting behind your excuses.

Originally Posted by Zep

Because I wanted to clarify that if I had to place them right now career-wise, I wouldn't put Manning over McNabb, it's really that simple.

That still doesn't explain why you brought up "career-wise" comparison...

Originally Posted by Zep

How does not including counting stats contradict the use of averaged stats? Did you even read ring's post that responded to you asking this the first time? The whole reason for averaged stats is to remove counting stats from the equation...you're not even making sense at this point.

Because without counting stats there wouldn't be a point in average stats...

Longevity is certainly a part of a player's career, but you looked at a post where I explicitly stated that I was making a list of career stats that don't include counting stats....and then said "but counting stats!"...do you see why I might roll my eyes at that?

No, I'm not including them for the reasons that I stated. Yeesh.

ftfy

Oh I think we all get what you think, you've repeated it for about 5 posts now.

Which is exactly why I stated that some could argue using averaged stats puts McNabb at an "unfair" disadvantage because of his decline due to age. Did you even read my posts?

That's a lovely opinion to have. If someone argues against it let me know.

What on Earth are you talking about? "Rules" of statistics? Are you just pulling stuff out of thin air now? Sweet Jesus I'm done trying to explain this to you, it's like talking to a rock. I gave reasons for why I excluded certain stats, you are free to dislike those reasons all you want. Have a good day.

The rest of it I guess I'll just address here. It looks like we have a disagreement of the definition of career stats, and I'm not exactly sure why I spent so much time disagreeing to it. Combination of me working at 1 am in the morning and you trying to over-analyze the **** out of everything I say I guess.

How many threads is this guy going to start so he can talk about his bromance with Eli?

It's never going to end

Like the Blackhawks? Hockey? Sports in general? Create a free account at ProSportsDaily and join in on the conversations today. Signing up takes no time at all, and you can be on the forums posting your opinions before you know it!

It appears it has ended. I guess this guy finally realized that the majority of us, and most level-headed Giants fans, see Eli as a mediocre to slightly above average QB, not the elite or top 10 player that this guy pretends he is.

romo, mcnabb, and eli. towards the end of the year, it looked like romo turned a big corner. but for their entire careers, mcnabb would be ahead of romo because of his 5 nfc title appearances as well as a super bowl appearance.